Entry Type ID Date Applicable Rating System Primary Credit Inquiry (LIs) Ruling (LIs) Related Addenda/LIs Related Resources Campus Applicable Internationally Applicable Country Applicability Reference Guide (Addenda) Page (Addenda) Location (Addenda) Description of Change (Addenda)
"LEED Interpretation" "1083" "2005-05-13" "New Construction, Commercial Interiors, Core and Shell, Existing Buildings" "EQp2 - Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) control" "The project, part of a HOPE VI development, is a six-story building containing 119 units of affordable housing. It employs non-combustible construction, interior partitions use metal stud framing. The project development team decided early in the process to render high performance and green in an affordable housing project even though this goal had not been proven in the local market. As compliance with the ETS control provisions is prerequisite, nothing short of the totality of this project\'s efforts toward LEED1/2 certification as well as all contingent funding is in the balance. The 12/3/2003 Credit Ruling describes an alternate compliance option that may be used in residential buildings. The performance target of 1.25 sq. in. equivalent leakage area per 100 sf. (ELA/100) of total enclosure area is beyond practicality for this project and may generally be so for other buildings of this type. Complex building systems coupled with accepted building practices inhibit continuous internal air(or smoke) separation between spaces. These difficulties multiply in steel construction where structural members and metal stud walls act like ducts connecting spaces within a building. Corrugated metal decks create conduit fields that impose monumental challenges to compartmentalizing by readily available products and skills. Abundant resources might be able to approach the nominal target, but such efforts may distract from more effective means to achieve the intent of the prerequisite. While a robust level of compartmentalization is essential for control of indoor air contaminants, control of pressure differences is also crucial. Each dwelling unit in this building has continuous mechanical exhaust of ~50 cfm and no other mechanical exhaust. Each apartment is also equipped with a dedicated outdoor air intake to help assure that make-up air is drawn directly from the exterior. With the residential ventilation system being direct, in-unit, and constant duty, the common area ventilation system is able to be more nearly balanced thus minimizing mechanically-induced pressure differences between corridors and other spaces as well as between floors. The building has a fluid-applied air barrier at exterior walls and a membrane roof that help to reduce the impact of exterior pressures acting on the building. The alternative compliance option references ASTM E779. We pose that ASTM E1827 is more relevant to the compliance option. It expressly provides guidance to the use of blower-door equipment, which has significant advantages in application to the ETS standard: - More widely available in region and significantly less costly than larger purpose-built pressure testing apparatus. - Multiple blower-doors are capable of inducing sufficient pressure to overcome background variability. It is unlikely that a building\'s mech. system would be able to induce such pressure unless it is enormously oversized. - Multiple blower-doors able to induce more even depressurization of whole buildings than a single fan. ASTM E779 indicates that ""uniform pressure be maintained within the conditioned space to within +/-10% of the measured inside/outside pressure difference."" There are also important differences between the standards\' measurement procedures. E779 requires multiple measurements across a range of pressures starting as low as 10 Pa. Measurements toward the lower end of the pressure range are subject to greater background variability and, therefore, have a de stabilizing effect on conclusions. E1827 provides a ""Single-Point Method"" that requires multiple measurements near 50 Pa. Project Proposes: Performance Target: 3.0 ELA/100. In combination with the ventilation strategy and exterior air barrier strategies, this performance target represents huge progress toward effective control of indoor air contaminants. It also requires substantial effort beyond standard industry practice. Methodology: ""Single-Point"" methodology described in ASTM E1827." "This revised ruling (posted 11/2/05) is intended to restate and clarify the CIR ruling of 5/13/2005. 1 - the requestor\'s proposal to use ASTM E1827 to verify apartment leakage rates instead of ASTM E779 is unacceptable. Although the two test protocols serve similar purposes, E1827 requires fewer data points (either one or two) over a narrower pressure range (12 to 50 Pa) compared to E779 (five points, at different pressures from 10 to 60 Pa). Compared to E779, E1827 provides a less complete and less robust leakage curve, and thus a less accurate leakage rate value. 2 - the request that the leakage rate requirement be weakened from 1.25 square inches of leakage area per 100 square feet of enclosure area to 3.00 ELA/100 is denied. The value of 1.25 ELA/100 appearing in the 12/03/2003 ruling is the Technical Advisory Group\'s judgment of a reasonably achievable goal. This goal was derived from knowledge of existing industry practice for good, airtight construction in apartment units. Structural design traits have little if any impact on achievability of the goal; the main drivers are the sealing properties of the doors, windows, and wall finishing (drywall, penetrations, etc.). The requestor\'s proposed alternative of simply providing 50 CFM of continuous mechanical ventilation does not guarantee that this prerequisite\'s intent will be met. Moreover, the passive-oriented ""prevention"" approach of having a tighter leakage rate is more robust to fluctuating real-time conditions than increased mechanical ventilation. As further points of clarification, note that a) the leakage requirement applies to each member of a sample of individual apartment units, not the building as a whole, and b) the whole-apartment unit leakage test must be performed regardless of whether the project uses weatherstripping on the doors to the hallway. Use of weatherstripping only eliminates the need for hallway pressure tests. --------------------- ORIGINAL RULING: The project is proposing a higher allowable equivalent leakage area (ELA) performance standard (3.0 ELA/100 vs. 1.25 ELA/100) on the basis that each residential unit is at roughly the same pressure as adjacent units, which will result in low leakage rates. Based on the information provided, it is not possible to conclude whether the proposed approach will satisfy the prerequisite requirements. First, it is not apparent how the value of 3.0 ELA/100 was calculated. Is this a direct result of applying the ASTM E1827 methodology instead of ASTM E779? Is it correlated to the 50 cfm of exhaust air per unit? It is not clear whether the corridors are positively pressured compared to the apartments. A CIR Ruling on 10/5/2004 provides guidance that corridors should be positively pressurized if weather-stripping is not present on the doors. You will need to meet either the weather-stripping or corridor pressurization requirement to satisfy this prerequisite. Make sure to assess your outdoor air intake design for compliance with ASHRAE 62 (the referenced standard in EQ prerequisite 1). The approach of providing a dedicated outside air intake and high volume exhaust fan in each unit will qualify as an alternate compliance path if these two issues can be resolved." "549, 680, 774, 922" "None"
"LEED Interpretation" "1492" "2006-04-14" "New Construction, Commercial Interiors, Core and Shell, Existing Buildings, Retail - New Construction, Retail - Commercial Interiors, Healthcare" "EQp2 - Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) control" "How are balconies to be addressed within the multi-unit residential compliance path presented by the 12/3/03 NCv2.1 CIR and NCv2.2 Option 3? And how are balconies treated within the option for prohibiting smoking? The credit requirements are not clear in this regard." "Any potential smoking outdoors must be addressed in regards to secondhand smoke exposure. Balconies are automatically considered smoking areas unless smoking on them is prohibited (by the building manager in the case of a leased apartment; by the initial HOA Rules and Regulations in the case of a condominium). For any compliance path, if a balcony does not comply with the requirements for exterior smoking areas (at least 25 feet away from entries, operable windows and outdoor air intakes), smoking must be prohibited on the balcony. LEED projects registered before September 4, 2006, will not be held to this interpretation, but are encouraged to do so. This ruling reflects the original intent of the IEQ Technical Advisory Group and is considered consistent with the non-residential compliance paths and with the mission of green building. The ruling is also considered reasonable because eighty percent of the U.S. population does not smoke." "1957" "None"
"LEED Interpretation" "1848" "2007-08-13" "New Construction, Existing Buildings, Commercial Interiors, Core and Shell" "EQp2 - Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) control" "This project will be a complete renovation of a historic manufacturing facility into a multifamily facility. The owner plans to allow smoking in individual apartment units, but not in common areas or near the building. The following precautions will be taken to control ETS migration: 1. Signage will be provided in all common areas prohibiting smoking in them and also within 25 feet of the outside of the building. Owner will provide a letter indicating this is a policy that will be enforced. 2. Each apartment unit will have a dedicated furnace with split direct-expansion unit. Furnaces will be located inside the apartment they serve and wall penetrations for natural gas and refrigerant will be sealed air-tight. 3. To provide ventilation in bedrooms without windows, outdoor air will be pretreated by a dedicated outdoor air unit (or units) running 24/7, ducted through common areas, and delivered to all apartments in sufficient quantities to comply with Sections 4 through 7 of the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard 62.1-2004. Outdoor air ducts entering apartments from common areas will be sealed and gravity backdraft dampered to prevent contamination. 4. Rooftop makeup air units will condition outdoor air and maintain 0.02 inches of water column positive pressure in the corridors and atrium with static pressure control. 5. All penetrations through walls, ceiling, and floors between apartments, between apartments and corridors, and between apartments and adjacent rooms/shafts will be sealed air-tight. 6. All doorways between apartments and corridors will be weather-stripped. 7. After construction, blower door tests will be conducted by an independent party. Test will be conducted in accordance with American National Standards Institute (ANSI)/American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) -E779-03 and using the progressive sampling methodology defined in Chapter 4 of the Residential Manual for Compliance with California\'s 2001 Energy Efficiency Standards. Apartment units must demonstrate a leakage area less than 1.25 square inches per 100 square feet of enclosure. Will these measures meet the requirements of ETS control for LEED certification?" "Yes, your description of the proposed measures for LEED NCv2.2 EQp2 meets all of the requirements for ETS for Residential Units as described in the LEED NCv2.2 Reference Guide." "None" "None"
"LEED Interpretation" "1877" "2007-09-10" "New Construction, Existing Buildings, Commercial Interiors, Core and Shell" "EQp2 - Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) control" "Our project is a residential dormitory on a university campus, registered under LEED NC version 2.2. Smoking will be allowed in the units, so we will be satisfying EQ prerequisite 2 with option 3. This CIR asks if tracer gas testing, as opposed to blower door testing, can be used to satisfy the testing requirement. In LEED NC version 2.1, tracer gas testing was required to verify acceptable sealing. Then a CIR dated 12/3/03 allowed for blower door testing as a substitute. A CIR dated 5/3/04 indicates that the decision to allow blower door testing was made because blower door testing is more economical: ""The 12/3/03 credit ruling that provides for blower door testing resulted from a combined effort...to find a more economical approach for residential projects to achieve this prerequisite."" However, in LEED NC version 2.2, it appears that only blower door testing is allowed. The vendor that has been retained for our project has indicated that tracer gas testing can more accurately assess the potential for air movement between dormitory rooms than blower door testing and therefore should be the preferred methodology. Blower door testing can give false results due to leakage from a room to the outdoors, rather than the room-to-room leakage that is the point of this prerequisite. This is a special concern with our project because each room has large operable windows - nearly floor to ceiling and wall to wall in many units, representing a significant portion of the unit envelope surface area. Blower door testing would penalize us for the unavoidable leakage area associated with the perimeter crack of these windows, even though that crack would not lead to contamination of adjacent rooms. Tracer gas testing, on the other hand, more accurately measures the sealing requirement of this prerequisite by measuring actual gas leakage from one room to another. Will it be acceptable, under LEED NC version 2.2, to use tracer gas testing instead of blower door testing to satisfy the testing requirement in option 3 of EQ prerequisite 2? Performance of differential air pressures would still be verified by separate testing as required." "Verification of the performance of smoking rooms may be accomplished through tracer gas testing (per LEED NC v2.1 requirements) as an alternative to blower door testing. ***Please see updated guidance for this CIR and blower door testing under a CIR Ruling posted on 2/20/2009 - projects registered on or after this date must use the new CIR Ruling.*** Applicable Internationally. " "5170" "None" "X"
"LEED Interpretation" "1891" "2008-09-25" "New Construction, Existing Buildings, Commercial Interiors, Core and Shell, Schools - New Construction" "EQp2 - Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) control" "The building that we are applying for LEED-EB is an upscale hotel and providing smoking rooms is necessary to compete in the market. Due to this reason, Option A is not applicable to our project. If the building only designates one floor for guests who smoke (out of upwards of 40 floors of guestrooms), would we strive for Option B? Or, is the hotel considered a residential building and therefore fall under Option C?" "Either Option B or C is acceptable for a hotel project. Applicable Internationally. " "None" "None" "X"
"LEED Interpretation" "1929" "2007-10-18" "New Construction, Commercial Interiors, Core and Shell, Existing Buildings" "EQp2 - Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) control" "Credit Interpretation Request Our project consists of a 24 story hotel and a 66 story hotel. The construction of both is poured in place concrete for interior shear walls and floors. Interior separation is accomplished through metal stud and drywall framing sealed at the floor and ceilings. The walls between units are insulated. The exhaust systems serving the guestrooms are provided in a back to back configuration where a common shaft is provided for exhaust for rooms on either side of a common separation wall. The separation walls are sealed air tight at the floor and the ceiling as are the other walls of the guestroom. The exhaust has a sub-duct within the shaft to maintain an upward airflow and reduce potential for contaminants from a lower level room to enter and exhaust duct serving a room at a higher level. Horizontal and vertical penetrations will be sealed. The exhaust riser is provided with a fan that operates continuously and is served with emergency power. While these systems comply with the requirements of the International Building Code and NFPA, the concept is applicable to controlling Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) as well. The configuration maintains a constant airflow from the room exhaust and does not permit backflow. The minimum pressure that would occur from the shaft to the guestroom is 0.02"" W.C. negative in the shaft. This is due to the inherent pressure drop across the exhaust grille generated by the airflow. The guestroom corridors are non-smoking and are furnished with continuously operating mechanical ventilation without return. This will slightly pressurize the corridor relative to the guestrooms thereby reducing the likelihood of transfer of ETS. Signage will be posted in the corridors and the Owner will provide a letter outlining their non-smoking policies. 1. We are considering the separation and sealing requirements of the hotel as if it were a hi-rise residential building, relative to the smoking requirements. a. Is this considered the proper path for compliance? b. We propose, following construction, that blower door tests will be conducted by an independent party. Test will be conducted in accordance with American National Standards Institute (ANSI)/American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) -E779-03 and using the progressive sampling methodology defined in Chapter 4 of the Residential Manual for Compliance with California\'s 2001 Energy Efficiency Standards. All units must demonstrate a leakage area less than 1.25 square inches per 100 square feet of enclosure. We have also specified a program for remediation if test results indicate more that the allowed leakage. Is this an acceptable approach, both in consideration as residential and in the testing protocol? 2. Given the design of the exhaust system, would it be permissible on the 66-story tower to stack non-smoking rooms on floors above the smoking floors and still meet the prerequisite requirements for ETS control? We would find this more effective in controlling ETS rather than stacking the smoking units in a column, as all smoking would be confined to individual floors. 3, The 23-story tower will only have smoking on the upper 2 floors. 4. Will weatherstripping be required on the smoking rooms given the slight pressurization of the corridors? Have we properly outlined compliance to meet the ETS prerequisite?" "The described compliance approach to meeting the ETS prerequisite is acceptable. In response to the question one, yes treating the hotel as a residential-occupancy type and conducting blower door tests using the sampling methodology is acceptable. Regarding questions two and three; yes, stacking the smoking rooms above the non-smoking rooms is acceptable as long as all penetrations and adjacent vertical chases are sealed. Regarding question four, weather stripping is not required if the hallways are positively pressurized. Applicable Internationally. " "None" "None" "X"
"LEED Interpretation" "1957" "2007-11-28" "New Construction, Commercial Interiors, Core and Shell" "EQp2 - Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) control" "This project will be an eleven story residential condominium project with 9 luxury units. The developer plans to allow smoking in individual apartment units and their private balconies, but not in common areas or near the building. The following precautions will be taken to control ETS migration: 1. Signage will be provided in all common areas prohibiting smoking in them and also within 25 feet of the outside of the building. Owner will provide a letter indicating this is a policy that will be enforced. 2. All penetrations through walls, ceiling, and floors between apartments, between apartments and corridors, and between apartments and adjacent rooms/shafts will be sealed air-tight. 3. All doorways between apartments, elevators, and corridors/stairs will be weather-stripped. 4. After construction, blower door tests will be conducted by an independent party. Test will be conducted in accordance with American National Standards Institute (ANSI)/American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) -E779-03 and using the progressive sampling methodology defined in Chapter 4 of the Residential Manual for Compliance with California\'s 2001 Energy Efficiency Standards. Apartment units must demonstrate a leakage area less than 1.25 square inches per 100 square feet of enclosure. This credit ruling interpretation request is in reaction to the 4/14/2006 Credit Ruling of LEED-NCv2.1 that states: ""Any potential smoking outdoors must be addressed in regards to secondhand smoke exposure. Balconies are automatically considered smoking areas unless smoking on them is prohibited (by the building manager in the case of a leased apartment; by the initial HOA Rules and Regulations in the case of a condominium). For any compliance path, if a balcony does not comply with the requirements for exterior smoking areas (at least 25 feet away from entries, operable windows and outdoor air intakes), smoking must be prohibited on the balcony. LEED projects registered before September 4, 2006, will not be held to this interpretation, but are encouraged to do so."" The project team feels that prohibiting smoking on the condominium\'s private balconies will have an undesirable effect of reducing the number of green buildings for the following reasons: 1. Prohibition of smoking on private balconies effectively regulates personal behavior on private property. 2. It inconsistent with the right to ""quiet enjoyment"" that buyers of condominiums seek and are entitled to such as casual smoking of cigars. 3. These sparsely occupied open private balconies will not resemble the dense group of smokers that are found outside many building entrances that produce a cloud of smoke. 4. Compliance with the prerequisite as interpreted in the above mentioned Credit Ruling would entail either prohibiting smoking on privately owned balcony areas or eliminating the balconies; neither option is practical or viable. 5. Balconies are typically within 25 feet of operable windows in adjacent residential (apartment) units especially within the operable windows on the floor above and the floor below. 6. The actual text from LEED-NCv2.2 for EQp2 states "".Locate any exterior designated smoking areas at least 25 feet away from entries, outdoor air intakes and operable windows opening to common areas.""; the neighboring condominium unit is not a ""common area"" and thus is not regulated by that section of the credit. 7. The subject property is located near Gramercy park and Union Square in Manhattan. Being located in a cultural and historic center, the property is expected to generate interest from an environment-friendly clientele. It is the developer\'s wish to underscore the green-friendly aspects of the design. 8. It is our belief that this interpretation of the prerequisite deters LEED compliance by a segment of buyers who are proponents of the ""green"" movement. It is the project team\'s contention that it is not the intent of this prerequisite to prohibit casual smoking by a small number of people in their private homes." "The CIR is suggesting that private balconies should not be considered smoking areas with respect to this prerequisite. The intent of this credit is to minimize exposure of building occupants to Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS). Balconies where smoking is permitted may be a source of ETS to areas adjacent to the balcony, as well as areas on the floors above and below, and must be considered for the prerequisite. The applicant does not describe any measures which would prevent ETS from these balconies from affecting those in adjacent spaces, and thus must prohibit smoking on these balconies to comply with the prerequisite." "1492" "None"
"LEED Interpretation" "1967" "2007-12-19" "New Construction, Commercial Interiors, Core and Shell, Existing Buildings, Retail - New Construction, Retail - Commercial Interiors, Healthcare" "EQp2 - Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) control" "The project is submitting under LEED-CI V2.0 for a tenant space renovation. The building that the tenant occupies is smoke free, except for a bar & restaurant. There was a recent city ordinance passed to ban smoking at all bars & restaurants by July 2008. The building management has also required this tenant to ban smoking by this date per city ordinance, making the building completely smoke free. Would a letter indicating future compliance by the tenant, along with documentation of the city ordinance fulfill the requirements of this prerequisite? Also, if the entrance to this building is on public property, and the current ordinance prohibits smoking only 15\' away from entrances, instead of 25\' as required per LEED, will the project still comply with the intent of the credit?" "The CIR is inquiring whether proof of future compliance would be acceptable to meet the prerequisite and whether prohibiting smoking within 15 feet from entrances would meet the intent of the credit. Future compliance for this prerequisite would not meet the intent, which is to prevent or minimize exposure of tenant space occupants, indoor surfaces, and systems to Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS). If smoking in a space is allowed for an extended period of time, this extends the timeframe over which occupants, systems, and surfaces within these spaces will be exposed to ETS. Materials which absorb ETS will off-gas after the smoking itself ceases, further extending the exposure timeframe. Limiting smoking to 15 feet from entrances instead of 25 feet would not meet the credit requirement. The project should prohibit smoking within 25 feet from building entrances, to the extent possible, in order to meet the credit requirements. If the applicant does not have the authority to prohibit smoking within 25 feet of the entrance, signage should be posted requesting that people do not smoke within 25 feet of the entrance. Applicable Internationally." "None" "None" "X"
"LEED Interpretation" "2033" "2008-02-05" "Core and Shell" "EQp2 - Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) control" "The project is a 127,000 sf, 10-story, new construction, mixed-use building. This is an owner/developer lead project in which we have several major tenants that have control over the interior build-outs. - The 1st floor contains condominium parking, hotel tenant common spaces & (2) small retail spaces that will not be built out at the current time. - Floors 2-8 are occupied by a hotel tenant. The hotel interiors will be built per the franchise standards. The franchise is not participating in any LEED initiatives. - Floors 9-10 are residential condos. Although these will be built by the developer, the majority will be sold to private tenants prior to construction. We are issuing a bid package for the base building core & shell and a separate bid package for the interiors of the hotel & condos. This inquiry is in regards to EQ Prerequisite 2 (ETS Control) and the appropriate LEED Project Boundary (LPB) to use for this project. We plan to achieve EQ Preq. 2 through Option 1 (prohibit smoking) for the retail portion, and Option 3 (residential buildings) for the hotel & condo portions. The documentation for this credit requires that we ""provide appropriate copies of construction drawings to document the location of the smoking rooms, designed area separations, and dedicated ventilation systems."" As a CS project, we would typically exclude all interior partitions from the LPB. In order to meet the requirements of this credit, we have proposed the following options: Option 1: Include all of the hotel & condo interiors in the LPB. Exclude the 1st floor retail spaces. - This option does not appear to be consistent with LEED-CS and seems more applicable to a LEED-NC project. Option 2: Exclude the hotel interior build-out & the retail tenant spaces from the LPB. The owner/developer\'s control over the interiors of these spaces is limited. Include the interior build-out of the condos in the LPB. The owner/developer has more control over this space. - We feel that this is a good option, although we are concerned that in including the condo interiors, we would not meet LEED-CS. Option 3: Include the common corridors leading to the condo units and/or hotel rooms in the LPB in order to document smoking rooms, weather stripping locations, etc. - We feel that it would be difficult to maintain a clear LPB in this situation, as some interior walls would be included and some would be excluded. Option 4: Continue to exclude all interior build-outs from the LPB. Use a similar approach to that suggested by the CS Reference Guide for EQ c8.2 (Views for 90% of Spaces). We would submit a tenant layout indicating smoking rooms, weather stripping locations, etc. This layout would be included in the submittal to show compliance with the prerequisite, but we would continue to exclude the interior partitions from the LPB for this and all other credits. Option 4 is the preferred approach. The project team wishes to maintain a simple and clear delineation between core & shell and tenant build out by excluding any interior partitions from the LPB. If prerequisite compliance requires that the common corridors are included in the LPB, the team will accept Options 2 or 3 as alternatives. Please advise as to the proper LPB approach to maintain compliance with EQ Prerequisite 2." "The CIR is requesting clarification of where to draw the LEED project boundary in a core & shell project that includes retail, hotel, and condominium tenants. From the description provided, the approach you call Option 4 is consistent with the Core & Shell rating system. Your responsibility will be to prohibit smoking in all common areas and ensure through documentation that any tenants who wish to allow smoking in their spaces have dedicated ventilation systems and the appropriate protections against air leakage. The LEED project boundary must be the same across all LEED credits, so all interior partitions would need to be excluded as TI work in the other LEED prerequisites and credits as well. If you wish to include interior spaces for other reasons, you may wish to consider using the LEED-NC rating system for the whole building or LEED-CI for the separate interior spaces. Applicable Internationally. " "None" "None" "X"
"LEED Interpretation" "2353" "2008-10-28" "New Construction, Commercial Interiors, Core and Shell" "EQp2 - Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) control" "This CIR is in reference to the ETS Control requirements of a 300,000 sf mixed occupancy project undergoing a major renovation. The building will contain commercial offices, retail space, restaurants, and a gambling hall. The nature of the project is in such a way that the entire building is undergoing a major renovation with the exception of the existing gambling hall. The gambling hall will not be renovated, upgraded or improved in any way. The tenant of the gambling hall holds a long term lease and does not participate in the renovation. During the major renovation of the overall building the gambling hall stays open for its customers. The gambling hall and its back-rooms have a total floor area of 16,500 sf. Smoking is permitted in the whole premises of the gambling hall. The gambling hall has four (4) main entrances directly to the outdoors, one (1) emergency exit directly to the outside and one (1) interior emergency exit leading to a hallway connected to the outside. The emergency exits are normally closed. The entire gambling hall premises are therefore confined to itself and have no connections to adjacent areas in the building. As far as ventilation and air conditioning systems are concerned the gambling hall and all back-rooms have their own existing systems. The requirements as set forth in Option 2 of the Prerequisite regarding smoking rooms are complete fulfilled (no recirculation of any air to non-smoking areas, enclosed deck to deck partitions, negative pressure of at least an average of 5 Pa but with a minimum of 1 Pa when the doors are closed). To achieve recognition of the EQ Prerequisite 2 - Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) Control the project team is considering two possible approaches: (1) The gambling hall and its back-rooms will be treated as one (1) smoking room since all the requirements as set forth in Option 2 of the Prerequisite are fulfilled. This is the preferable option of the owner and project team. (2) The gambling hall and its back-rooms will be excluded from the LEED-NC 2.2 project. In this case the project team would pursue a LEED certification for the whole building excluding the gambling hall (since the gambling hall premises is a confined space to the rest of the building). This is the less favorable option of the owner and project team. Please advice if approach (1) and/or (2) would be permissible to get acceptance of the USGBC for achieving EQ Prerequisite 2 - Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) Control." "The project team is asking for guidance on two possible strategies for meeting EQ Prerequisite 2 - ETS Control. Approach 2 is the only acceptable option. The project must establish a LEED-NC Project Boundary that excludes the gambling hall area. From the information provided, it seems clear that the gambling hall does not fall within the scope of the project. Additionally, approach (2) is supported by two previous USGBC rulings. Per EQp2 CIR Ruling dated 8/14/2003, large common areas cannot be considered smoking rooms, even if they are adequately separated from other parts of the building, because they do not protect non-smoking patrons from smoke within the space. The specific situation regarding gaming areas within mixed-use resorts has also been addressed by the USGBC in a letter to Carl Linvill, Director of the Nevada State Office of Energy, dated September 15, 2006 available at http://energy.state.nv.us/usgbc%20-%20leed%20in%20nevada.pdf If smoking is permitted in the casino gaming area, that area is not eligible for LEED certification. Other areas of the resort property may be eligible for LEED certification if the following conditions are met: " "610" "None"
"LEED Interpretation" "2610" "2009-08-04" "New Construction, Commercial Interiors, Core and Shell, Existing Buildings" "EQp2 - Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) control" "The project team plans to meet the intent of Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) Control through the use of ""Smoking Cabins"" and requests an exception to the technical requirements indicated to meet the intent. The smoking cabin is in full compliance with the requirements for ETS Control Systems GS-BGIA-M14 of BGIA (German Institute for Occupational safety and health), soon to be ground for the CEN European standard for Non-smoker protection. It has already been integrated in the law for non smoker protection of some European countries, like Austria. The BGIA tests control how a given cabin limits and eliminates tobacco related particles and gases. The smoking cabin is a small free-standing kind of smoking room, open or closed, where a high air flow ensures immediate capture of all tobacco smoke before it is dispersed in the cabin (contrary to a smoking room where all smoke spreads in the room before being ventilated). Immediate capture (vs ventilation) is a standard technology used in many other industries. The smoke is then purified through a combination of high standards particle filters and active coal gas filters, leaving no traces of tobacco specific particles or gases (cf GS-BGIA-M14). Cabins can be open or closed. The result is the disappearance of all tobacco specific particles and gases under detection level. The following guarantees to reach the intent of ETS Control, even though the technical approach is different: 1. Efficient capture of the smoke is guaranteed by very high air flow, (minimum of 200m3/h per smokers, and 3x times the volume of the cabin per minute), to ensure immediate capture of the smoke before it totally mixes with the air in the cabin. The capture efficiency and the no contamination of adjacent area is tested and proven by BGIA GS-BGIA-M14. 2. Recycling, elimination of particles: particles are removed through the use of absolute filters level HEPA14 -ULPA 15, purifying up to 99,9995% of the MPPS (Most Penetrating Particles - 0,1 " "The project is requesting an alternative compliance pathway for EQp2: ETS Control, by using indoor smoking cabins with in situ filtration. While air cleaning and dilution ventilation have been found to be helpful in improving visibility and reducing irritation in rooms with tobacco smoking, neither air cleaning nor dilution ventilation have been shown to provide acceptable indoor air quality from a health perspective (e.g. lung cancer, cardiovascular disease etc.). For these reasons, this approach does not meet the intent of the prerequisite and will not be accepted. Applicable Internationally; Germany. " "None" "None" "X"
"LEED Interpretation" "5103" "2008-04-23" "New Construction, Core and Shell" "EQp2 - Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) control" "This CIR concerns handling of HVAC openings during the blower door test for LEED-NC v2.2, EQ prerequisite 2, Environmental Tobacco Smoke Control. To satisfy EQp2, residential buildings which will allow occupants to smoke in residential units may meet the set of requirements under Option 3. This requires demonstration of acceptable sealing by conducting a blower door test in accordance with ASTM-E779-03 on a sample of the residential units. The units must demonstrate less than 1.25 square inches of leakage area per 100 SF of enclosure area. Leakage area is calculated in accordance with the referenced Standard and represents the total cumulative open area in the enclosure surfaces that define the test unit\'s boundary. The test procedure described in ASTM-E779-03 includes the stipulation that, ""HVAC balancing dampers and registers should not be adjusted. Fireplace and other operable dampers should be closed unless they are used to pass air to pressurize or de-pressurize the building."" (See Para. 8.2) Regardless of the reasoning behind it, this stipulation presents a problem when the test results are to be measured against a fixed maximum leakage area as in this case. In many instances the open area of HVAC openings alone may exceed the allowable leakage area for a unit, rendering this requirement impossible to meet. For example, a 600 SF apartment with 2050 SF of enclosure area would have a maximum allowable leakage area of 25.6 square inches. If this unit has a 6"" square exhaust grille (such as might be required for the toilet exhaust) the open area of this alone would exceed the allowable 26 square inches of leakage area. We propose to meet this requirement by conducting the necessary blower door tests in accordance with ASTM-E779-03, with the sole exception that HVAC openings are closed or sealed during the test similar to fireplace dampers. Please confirm this interpretation or provide an alternative which would address this issue." "The project team is requesting an exception to ASTM-E779-03, Section 8.2, with regards to HVAC openings, so that they can be closed or sealed. ASTM-E779-03 is explicit in stating that ""HVAC balancing dampers and registers should not be adjusted"", and also that ""Fireplace and other operable dampers should be closed unless they are used to pass air to pressurize or de-pressurize the building."" The practice for outdoor air leakage measurements, which is the intent of this standard, is to test the building without sealing over openings to outdoors. If the openings have dampers that can be closed (e.g. fireplace) then they are closed. For projects to meet the intent of this credit all openings to outdoors (kitchen and bathroom exhausts, z-duct outdoor air transfer grilles, mechanical system outdoor air intakes) should be sealed; forced air unit supply and return ducts should not be sealed and the system should be off. To clarify the method of conducting the test and determining the leakage area, the test method involves pressurization and de-pressurization of the building and measurements of the resulting airflow rates at the given indoor/outdoor pressure differences. The air leakage characteristics (including the leakage area) of the building envelope are determined based on the relationship between airflow rates and the pressure differences. These readings are taken at a range of induced pressures, with all other items being constant ¬ and the average of the before/after zero flow envelope pressures is subtracted from the measured envelope pressures at each instance to determine the corrected envelope pressures (per 9.3 of ASTM-E779-03). \n Applicable Internationally. " "None" "None" "X"
"LEED Interpretation" "5150" "2008-09-23" "New Construction, Commercial Interiors, Core and Shell, Existing Buildings" "EQp2 - Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) control" "This project meets the intent of this prerequisite, as it is a smoke-free base building and interior tenant space thereby preventing exposure of tenants to ETS. However, the tenant space is within a building owned by others and the exterior is beyond our scope of work. The tenant is a non-profit agency that provides shelter, counseling, and support for a significant number of runaway and homeless youth each year. Building reuse and walkable access for its clients to public services drove the tenant\'s choice of location. The building reuse included existing window and door locations. Tenant space is also defined by condominium ownership without ability to modify the building structure. The tenant\'s past experience with its clients has taught that tobacco-related smoking is a minor health risk relative to their other lifestyle circumstances. Further, if the clients are not provided a convenient smoking area, they will smoke in other non-smoking parts of the building or worse, will simply return to the streets. Within the limitations of the existing building and condo ownership, the tenant has located a smoker\'s terrace in the residential section of the tenant space. The residential section with the terrace furthers the tenant\'s mission by providing a safe, convenient and non-judgmental place for homeless youth to come off of the streets and access the help they need. Tenant measures to accomplish its mission and the intent of the prerequisite: - Location of terrace on side of building opposite other public entrances - Smoker\'s terrace sealed from the interior of the building - Access provided to the terrace from the residential section - Proposed installation of ceiling fan with motion sensor to actively and continuously dissipate ETS generated on the terrace effectively exhausting it outdoors. Building codes mandate that residential bedroom windows (2 within 25\' of terrace) and one door (within 25\' of terrace) remain operable as fire exits. The subject door is for access to the residential section of the building. The users of the terrace will also be the users of the subject door and bedrooms. The equidistant spacing of the existing window openings would make alternative terrace locations the same (less than 25\') distance from operable fire exits and potentially direct ETS to other non-smoking entrances to the building. All non-residential windows are inoperable. The tenant has made significant investments in other green building measures that would help it achieve certification and present a model environment for its Teen Green education program for youth ages 12-17. The project team seeks confirmation that its proposal to operate the smoker\'s terrace as described meets the intent of the requirement in light of the limitations of the building, circumstances of the resident tenants and minimization of ETS exposure to non-residential sections of the building." "The applicant is requesting confirmation of the proposed design to minimize or eliminate ETS exposure to interior spaces. The proposed approach is not acceptable. Two operable windows and a door are not located 25 feet from the smoker\'s terrace as required by the LEED-CI v2.0 Rating System. The proposed design will provide multiple locations for smoke to enter the interior spaces and expose both non-smoking occupants and interior surfaces to ETS (and presumably undermine the building owner\'s desire to have a ""smoke-free base building""). In order to satisfy the prerequisite intent, the requirements for either Option A or Option B as specified in the LEED-CI v2.0 Rating System must be satisfied. The tenant should be commended for the green building measures incorporated as part of the project; however, the requirements of EQp2 must be satisfied to achieve LEED certification. Applicable Internationally. " "None" "None" "X"
"LEED Interpretation" "5170" "2009-02-20" "New Construction, Commercial Interiors, Core and Shell, Existing Buildings" "EQp2 - Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) control" "EQ Prerequisite 2 - Environmental Tobacco Smoke Control This project is a 41 story high rise condominium residential building registered under LEED NC v2.2. Smoking will be allowed in all of the 141 residential units, and will be meeting EQ Prerequisite 2 with Option 3 compliance path. Though tracer gas testing was approved by the USGBC Credit Interpretation Ruling dated September 10, 2007 (""Verification of the performance of smoking rooms may be accomplished through tracer gas testing (per LEED NC v2.1 requirements) as an alternative to blower door testing""), this CIR is asking approval for the following tracer gas testing methodology: In accordance with the progressive sampling methodology detailed in Chapter 4 of the Residential Manual for Compliance with California\'s 2001 Energy Efficiency Standards, and as referenced in the LEED NC v2.2 Prerequisite language, residential units will be grouped together based on unit type. Testing will be conducted on one (1) in seven (7) units in each group. Should any of the residential units fail the test, the construction contractor can resolve the issue prior to re-testing that unit. Should any of the remaining 1 in 7 units in that group fail the test, the entire group will be deemed to fail. The contractor will then correct every unit in that group prior to every unit being tested. A spectrophotometer will be used as the tracer gas analyzer. The residential unit will be tested with all the doors and windows closed and the HVAC system turned off to create similar environments in all units. The tracer gas will be released at breathing height in a centrally located area within the unit. The tracer gas will be injected at a constant flow rate into the room until steady-state conditions are achieved. Once steady state conditions are achieved (where concentrations vary less than 8%), leak tests will be initiated in all adjoining residential units for a minimum of 5 minutes in each site using a second spectrophotometer calibrated to match the one located in the testing unit. As stated in the LEED NC (V2.1) Reference Guide, acceptable exposure in the adjacent units is defined as less than 1% of the tracer gas concentration in the testing unit or ""smoking room"". Upon completion of the measurements, steady state conditions in the testing unit will be reconfirmed using the spectrophotometer. Please advise if this methodology will meet the intent of and all requirements of EA Prerequisite 2 ETS Control." "The tracer gas test is no longer an acceptable test method for EQp2. The reason for eliminating the tracer gas is that it only provides a snap shot in time of the transport of air from unit to unit and is influenced by varying meteorological conditions and operation of mechanical systems, where as the blower door test is not influenced by those factors. The sampling methodology outlined in the CIR conforms to that described in Chapter 4 (Compliance Through Quality Construction) of the Residential Manual for Compliance with California\'s 2001 Energy Efficiency Standards. The CIR dated September 10, 2007 has been updated to reference the guidance above. Applicable Internationally. " "1877" "None" "X"
"LEED Interpretation" "5200" "2009-04-21" "New Construction, Schools - New Construction, Commercial Interiors, Core and Shell, Existing Buildings" "EQp2 - Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) control" "This multi-tenant hi-rise office building has a full-service restaurant/bar located on the ground floor. The restaurant/bar has an outdoor patio for its patrons where smoking is permitted. This patio is not the building\'s designated smoking area. This patio is located 25\' from the building entrance and less than 25\' from the entrance to the restaurant. There are no operable windows and the outdoor air intakes for the building are on the roof of the building. The outdoor air intake for the restaurant/bar is within 25\' of the smoking patio. Does the smoking patio have to be 25\' from the building\'s entrance and outdoor air intakes AND 25\' from the tenant\'s entrance and outdoor air intake in order to meet the prerequisite?" "No areas where smoking is likely to take place, including at sit-down tables or around receptacles for cigarette butts, can be located within 25\' of any entrances, operable windows, or air intakes of the building, including the tenant space housing the restaurant/bar. Applicable Internationally. " "None" "None" "X"
"LEED Interpretation" "5230" "2009-06-30" "New Construction, Core and Shell" "EQp2 - Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) control" "Description: Our project is an existing 22-story skyscraper undergoing major renovation. Each floor has 19,946 sqft with one central core area consisting of elevators, vestibules, fire stairs, mech. shafts/spaces (all common) and restrooms, kitchenettes and unassigned rooms all accessible from tenant side) - all part of the CS-project; AND 3 radiant wings of tenant spaces suitable for future office use (part of the CS-project here is only the raised floor system, ceilings, as well as HVAC and lighting provisions). Each floor and can later be divided into 1 (approx. 16,140 sqft) to max. 3 tenant spaces (each with approx. 5,382 sqft). The approx. 75""-grid established through the CS-project determines possible - not already built! - wall and tenant separation wall locations in the wing areas. Our approach to comply: 1-Statement from the owner that the public and common areas of the building,as well as the area up to 25 feet away from the building are non-smoking areas. In addition: extract of the standard rental contract (in German, translation added)verifying the statement from the owner. 2-Extract of the standard rental contract (in German, translation added) stating that smoking within the rental units is only permissible upon agreement/arrangement. In addition: Statement from the owner that smoking in the tenant spaces will be permitted if the designated smoking rooms within the tenant spaces will comply with the LEED-requirements. 3-Statement from the owner that they are trying to discourage smoking by not providing designated smoking rooms as part of the Core & Shell project, but that compliance of smoking rooms that could potentially be built in context with a tenant built-out has been ensured by the project team. 4-Statement from the MEP-engineer that the HVAC-system runs with 100%-fresh air intake. No redistribution of return air at all. 5-Statement from the MEP-engineer that it is feasible for him / the HVAC-system to create the required negative pressure anywhere within each rental unit. So, the tenant is free in his choice of where to place a smoking room within his unit. 6-Statement from the architect that the building has been planned without designated smoking rooms within the rental units, but that it will be feasible to create these rooms during a later tenant built-out either a) in the ""wing areas"" through building the appropriate partitions, or b) in the built core areas through altering the existing partitions according to the LEED-requirements. To do so; a portion of the raised floor system would need to be removed in order to bring the smoking room partition wall down to the floor slab; a part of the ceiling would need to be removed in order to bring the smoking room partition up to the deck; penetrations through the walls need to be sealed. The mechanical engineer then only needs to adjust the settings. In addition: typical floorplan, standard wall section, future smoking room wall section. Question1: Is this approach acceptable, even though the possible future smoking rooms are not going to be built as part of the CS-project AND alterations to what has been built during the CS-project might have to be made (see 6) to accommodate such rooms? Or do we need to built out unassigned rooms with partitions that fulfil the requirements now (= during the CS-project)and that later only need to be ""occupied"", not altered? Question 2: Is it permissible that 1 whole floor (or one whole tenant unit) would be smoking, as long as the common areas and adjacent areas, as well as separating walls to other tenant spaces (if applicable) are kept smoke-free?" "The project team is requesting that the construction/design requirements for potential smoking areas in future tenant spaces be covered by contract language in the tenant lease agreements. This is an acceptable approach for documenting credit compliance. For certification, the project must provide a copy of the lease agreement with the requirements highlighted, and documentation demonstrating that the base building exhaust and outdoor air systems have the capacity to accommodate future tenant smoking rooms, and give an example of or describe how future smoking rooms would be connected to these systems. Additionally, the project team is asking as to whether an entire floor can be declared as a smoking floor as long as the common areas are kept smoke-free. This is not an acceptable approach for prerequisite achievement, because the intent of the prerequisite is to minimize exposure of building occupants exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke, this includes building occupants of the tenants for which smoking is allowed. Tenants that wish to allow smoking will need to provide smoking rooms that meet the requirements of the prerequisite for this credit. Applicable Internationally. " "None" "None" "X"
"LEED Interpretation" "5268" "2007-05-30" "New Construction, Commercial Interiors, Core and Shell, Existing Buildings" "EQp2 - Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) control" "Our building is a 9 story multifamily residential building for seniors and grand families with 95 apartments. All common areas including a community center, corridors and stairwells will be no-smoking areas, however we are not able to make individual apartments non-smoking. Hence we are demonstrating compliance with the Smoke Control prerequisite based on the residential compliance path. We will have pressurized corridors and appropriately seal all vertical ducts. This building has a unique floor plan because of the presence of a 3-story existing landmark structure on-site and hence has no repetitive, or standard apartment layouts per floor, but each full floor plate is consistent. We understand that we have to perform both blower door tests to measure the sealing of the apartments and corridor pressurization tests to check the corridor pressure against the apartments. The \'Residential Manual of California 2001 Energy Efficiency Standard\', states that multistory buildings more than 4 stories are covered in the non-residential manual and we did not find any information on the sampling methodology for high-rise residential buildings in the non-residential manual. Hence judging by the peculiarities of the building and absence of any clear sampling methodology in the \'Residential Manual of California 2001 Energy Efficiency Standard\' for high-rise residential building we think the following sampling methodology is logical. Sampling Methodology for Corridor Pressurization Testing: The residential portion of the building has been divided into two zones each of which has one make up air unit for corridor pressurization. We intend to select 1 apartment in each zone hence 2 on one floor and then and then repeat the test on the 4th & 8th floors, testing a total of six (6) apartments. Please let us know if this is acceptable. Sampling Methodology for Blower Door Tests: Since there is no clear sampling methodology for blower door tests in high-rise residential buildings, we think the above sampling methodology of testing 6 apartments as described for corridor pressurization testing, may be logical for blower door tests too. This way we can test apartments not only on one floor but also on the higher floors. However after reading the previous CIR\'s for this prerequisite, we see that LEED accepted and recommended a 10% sampling methodology. Could you please clarify, if the above methodology of sampling 6 units for blower door tests is acceptable or do we have to test at least 10% of all smoking apartments?" "The proposed methodology is not acceptable. The Residential Manual of California 2001 Energy Efficiency Standard refers to section 7.5 of the Home Energy Rating Systems (HERS) Field Verification and Diagnostic Testing Regulations (http://www.energy.ca.gov/2005publications/CEC-400-2005-044/CEC-400-2005-044.PDF). This language is in agreement with the CIR ruling dated 8-23-05, which states that the project should be prepared to submit documentation that blower door testing (in compliance with ASTM Standard E779-99) was performed on at least 1 in 7 units where smoking is permitted. This sampling methodology applies to the required corridor pressurization tests and the blower door tests." "None" "None"
"LEED Interpretation" "610" "2003-08-14" "New Construction, Commercial Interiors, Core and Shell, Existing Buildings" "EQp2 - Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) control" "The City of Charlottesville is currently in the process of planning a multi-use transit center for which we are pursuing a Silver LEED accreditation. The multi-use facility in design will include the shell for installation of a restaurant on the upper floor of the building. Locating a restaurant at this site is ideal in marketing terms due to the popularity of the surrounding areas and the high quality of restaurants already in the area. The restaurant space will, of course, be required to comply with all credits pursued by our organization, as described in our application. With a grand total of 23, 295 sq ft of enclosed space in the multi-use facility, 15,795 sq ft of that will be designated non-smoking and the remaining portion, confined to the restaurant\'s enclosed space will be isolated through the use of negative pressure ventilation and an isolated HVAC system that effectively eliminates any contamination of restaurant air with air circulated through the rest of the facility. The fidelity of the isolation measures will be tested in compliance with methods described in ASHRAE Standard 129-1997 (Smoking Room Testing). Will the ratio of 15,795 sq ft enclosed non-smoking space : 23,295 sq ft total enclosed space be sufficient to qualify for the ETS pre-requisite? In other words, will a smoking room that comprises a fair percentage of the building\'s total floor space be within the letter of the pre-requisite given full compliance with isolated ventilation requirements?" "The prerequisite requires, ""Zero exposure of nonsmokers to ETS by prohibition of smoking in the building, OR, provide a designated smoking room designed to effectively contain, capture and remove ETS from the building"". The CIR narrative implies that the entire restaurant is being treated as a smoking room. While this approach will prevent building occupants in other spaces within the building from tobacco smoke exposure, it does not protect non-smoking restaurant patrons from smoke within the space. If smoking cannot be prohibited in the restaurant, the project team and owner may wish to consider creating a fully contained smoking section within the facility that meets the requirements set forth under the prerequisite. Applicable Internationally." "2353" "None" "X"
"LEED Interpretation" "680" "2003-12-03" "New Construction, Commercial Interiors, Core and Shell, Existing Buildings" "EQp2 - Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) control" "Has USGBC established an alternative compliance path for IEQp2 in commercial office spaces? In multi-family residential buildings?" "Yes, in order to thoroughly address various building scenarios, the following option have been developed as an addendum by the LEED IEQ Technical Advisory Group, for immediate use by LEED projects. ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE OPTION 1: Establish negative pressure in the smoking rooms. a) Prohibit smoking in the building except in designated smoking areas b) Locate any exterior designated smoking areas at least 25 feet away from entries, outdoor air intakes and operable windows. c) Providing one or more designated smoking rooms designed to effectively contain, capture and remove ETS from the building. At a minimum, the smoking room must be directly exhausted to the outdoors with no re-circulation of ETS-containing air to the non-smoking area of the building, and enclosed with impermeable deck-to-deck partitions and operated at a negative pressure compared with the surrounding spaces of at least an average of 5 Pa (0.02 inches of water gauge) and with a minimum of 1 Pa (0.004 inches of water) when the door(s) to the smoking room are closed. d) Performance of the smoking room differential air pressures shall be verified by conducting 15 minutes of measurement, with a minimum of one measurement every 10 seconds, of the differential pressure in the smoking room with respect to each adjacent area and in each adjacent vertical chase with the doors to the smoking room closed. The testing will be conducted with each space configured for worst case conditions of transport of air from the smoking rooms to adjacent spaces. ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE OPTION 2 (for residential buildings only): Reduce air leakage between rooms with smoking and non-smoking areas in residential buildings. a) Prohibit smoking in all common areas of the building b) Locate any exterior designated smoking areas at least 25 feet away from entries, outdoor air intakes and operable windows opening to common areas. c) Minimize uncontrolled pathways for ETS transfer between individual residential units by sealing penetrations in walls, ceilings, and floors in the residential units, and by sealing vertical chases adjacent to the units. In addition, all doors in the residential units leading to common hallways shall be weather-stripped to minimize air leakage into the hallway. Acceptable sealing of residential units shall be demonstrated by a blower door test conducted in accordance with ASTM standard E779-99 (Determining Air Leakage Rate by Fan Pressurization) using the progressive Sampling Process for Diagnostic Testing in Figure 4-3 of Section 4.4.4 of the California 2001 Title 24 Low Rise Residential Manual - the Home Energy Rating Systems (HERS) Verification Procedure (on http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/residential_manual, download Chapter 4). The standard is simply to be used for its sampling methodology - other administrative instructions and forms need not be used. Residential units must demonstrate less than 1.25 square inches leakage area per 100 square feet of enclosure area (i.e. sum of all wall, ceiling, and floor areas). AMENDMENT PER 10/5/04 CREDIT RULING: It is not required to weather-strip the doors connected to common hallways if hallways are positively pressurized with respect to residential units, and the following additional testing is conducted. The pressure difference shall be measured and recorded at least once every 10 seconds for at least 15 minutes; the average recorded pressure difference shall be no less than 5 Pa (0.02 inches of water gauge), with the lowest recorded pressure difference no less than 1 Pa (0.004 inches of water). Tests shall be made with all doors closed and with only those fans operating that are designed to operate continuously; occupant switch controlled fans shall not be operated during the tests. SUBMITTALS: Alter the hardcopy version of Letter Template as appropriate to reflect alternative option 1 or 2 and provide a narrative and summarized test results. Applicable Internationally." "549, 774, 922, 1083" "None" "X"
"LEED Interpretation" "696" "2004-01-20" "New Construction, Commercial Interiors, Core and Shell, Existing Buildings" "EQp2 - Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) control" "A company is developing a new 71,000 square foot, one-story commercial/industrial facility. The company has established policies prohibiting smoking inside all of their facilities. For this particular project, they have designed a covered outdoor break area to be located within a long shallow alcove on the south face of the building to provide employees with a comfortable outdoor space where they can eat their lunches or convene during their scheduled breaks. The design team recognized the likelihood the space would also be used by smokers. To control the potential of tobacco smoke from disturbing non-smokers while in this area and to eliminate the possibility of tobacco smoke from entering the building, an outdoor smoke enclosure was designed. The break area alcove is enclosed on three sides by exterior building walls that extend up to the roof deck. The fourth side is open to the outdoors and a twelve-foot high soffit and the building roof above cover the alcove. The proposed smoking enclosure will be located at one end of the alcove with the exterior building walls enclosing two sides and the remaining two sides formed by an \'L-shape\' glass partition sealed to the slab, the underside of the soffit and to the building walls. This enclosure will be the only area adjacent to the building where smoking is permitted. The enclosure is accessed through a seven-foot high open doorway on the south face of the glass partition. An exhaust fan designed to remove smoke from the enclosure will be installed in the soffit and ducted to the roof more than 80 feet from the closest outside air intake. The doorway to the enclosure is located ~50 feet from closest operable window, ~33 feet from the doors through which employees will access the break area and ~23 feet from an access door to the building\'s electrical room (not a building entry). The smoking enclosure is not located near an area of high pedestrian traffic and the doorway is ~20 feet from the seating in the non-smoking break area. As noted above, the smoking enclosure is more than 25 feet from building entries, operable windows and air intakes. We have found no specific requirements for separation of outdoor smoking and non-smoking areas in the LEED Reference Guide and CIRs. The glass enclosure and exhaust fan are designed to prevent EST exposure of employees in the non-smoking break area. We feel that the proposed design meets the specific requirements and intent of the prerequisite. Do you agree?" "The above design seems to be a reasonable approach to protecting non-smokers from second hand smoke, and therefore meets the intent of the prerequisite. Be sure to include supporting documentation including drawings to demonstrate the distance between the smoking area and operable windows, doors and air uptakes in the building. Applicable Internationally." "None" "None" "X"
"LEED Interpretation" "774" "2004-05-03" "New Construction, Commercial Interiors, Core and Shell, Existing Buildings" "EQp2 - Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) control" "We seek to develop a cost effective method to meet the intent of the ETS prerequisite in residential projects that do not have gasketed doorways (required by USGBC-approved alternative methodology, but not commonly used in Pacific Northwest highrise residential design). The proposed alternative relies on a combination of three strategies to meet the Intent: construction methodology, tracer gas testing, and pressure differential testing, as follows. (1) Construction All units will be constructed to function as designated smoking rooms to effectively contain ETS: - All unit perimeter walls are contiguous, from structural slab to structural slab. All leakage paths are caulked and sealed. All demising walls are of double wall construction with no continuous pathway between units. Sheetrock is continuously sealed with a flexible caulk at the floor and ceiling. All electrical and telephone outlets in demising walls are smoke sealed. - No supply ductwork pathways between units. Ductwork pathways between units are limited to central exhausted airstreams with exhaust fans operated continuously on emergency power. (2) Tracer gas testing Testing procedure will be conducted on six units as follows: - Two corner units (NW and SE) on a lower floor; - One North exposure only unit on a lower floor; - Two corner units (NW and SE) on a higher floor; - One South exposure only unit on a higher floor. With predominant site wind direction being NW (summer) and ESE (winter), these locations provide optimum testing of the impact of wind forces and stack effect on ETS contamination. Test to be performed with residential windows closed. Specific measurement methods and locations follow ASHRAE 129-1997. The objective of the test is to demonstrate the effectiveness of passive or architectural measures at preventing ETS from migrating between units. (3) Pressure differential testing Tracer gas testing will include local differential pressure testing between the test condos and the corridors. Since the corridors are the most likely path for leakage of ETS between units, corridors will be maintained at positive pressure to prevent the leakage of ETS from condos into corridors. Tracer gas testing will demonstrate that migration of ETS between adjacent condos tested is essentially zero. This will be the result of a combination of the building design and construction described above and corridor pressure difference. We will then test an additional sampling of 10% of the building condos using pressure testing only as an effective surrogate for tracer gas testing. Testing Procedure 1. Verify the following conditions at the start of the test: a. Toilet exhaust fans running; b. Dryer exhaust fans running; c. Test and adjacent condo HVAC unit supply fans running and outlets are balanced; d. Corridor Makeup air unit is running and outlets are balanced; e. Corridor life safety pressurization dampers are closed; f. All corridors doors are closed on the test floor; g. Windows are closed in the selected test spaces and adjacent units; h. Wind speed outside is greater than zero; i. Outdoor air temperature difference with indoor spaces is greater than 50% of the design value. 2. Establish stable tracer gas concentration in the test space. Provide a concentration above the test value for a minimum of 15 minutes. 3. Measure concentration of tracer gas in the corridor outside the test space. 4. Measure concentration of tracer gas in the spaces adjacent to the test space. 5. Measure pressure differential between tested condo test space and corridor. 5. Repeat for additional test spaces. CRITERIA FOR PASSING Building passes if tests show that concentration in the corridor and adjacent spaces is below one percent of the lowest stable established value maintained in the test space." "The proposed approach is not acceptable. The project team has proposed a hybrid approach, in an effort to meet the intent of the prerequisite, claiming to reduce costs associated with tracer gas testing for 10% of the units. The 12/3/03 credit ruling that provides for blower door testing resulted from a combined effort by the LEED IEQ Technical Advisory Group, national IAQ experts and users to find a more economical approach for residential projects to achieve this prerequisite. In the course of this study, the team found that the blower door test method was not only less expensive for projects, but was also readily available across the country in contrast to the tracer gas test method. The proposed approach attempts to combine methodologies approved in previous CIR rulings for both tracer gas and blower door testing procedures and reduces the quantity of units required to be tested under each procedure. The sampling sizes and testing methods approved in previous CIR rulings (dated 1/18/02 and 12/3/03) were established to provide a consistent approach that can be applied to multi-family residential projects, regardless of building type, climatic conditions or configuration. As this proposed sampling strategy applies to the building size and configuration of this particular project, but cannot be applied consistently to other multi-family residential projects with different conditions and configurations, it is not approved as an alternative approach. If customized hybrid approaches to this credit were allowed, the door would be open for all projects to propose different methods to achieve compliance. It is impossible for the USGBC to assess individual approaches for this credit on a project-by-project basis." "549, 680, 922, 1083" "None"
"LEED Interpretation" "922" "2005-01-18" "New Construction, Existing Buildings, Commercial Interiors, Core and Shell, Mid-rise" "EQp2 - Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) control" "Subject: Test Sampling Criteria for Multi-family Affordable Housing Units Issue: The referenced standards for the Environmental Tobacco Control Pre-requisite include wording that raises a question about what quantity of units (sampling) are required to be tested (blower door testing) for compliance with the intent of the pre-requisite in a multi-family affordable housing building project. Context: The building consists of twenty affordable housing units: - 1st floor Retail (non-smoking) in addition to (2) units. - 2nd and 3rd floors are similar layouts and contain the remaining 18 units. - This type affordable housing building is one of multiple of this type to be constructed by this non-profit community development corporation. The affordable housing units allow smoking and propose to isolate the distribution of tobacco smoke through attention to the detailing and quality of construction of walls connecting rooms and the corridor. In addition the doors connecting to the corridor will be weather-stripped on three sides with an undercut at the base of the door. Description: The 12/3/2003 CIR under alternative compliance option 2 states ""Acceptable sealing of residential units shall be demonstrated by a blower door test conducted in accordance with ASTM standard E779-99 (Determining Air Leakage Rate by Fan Pressurization) using the progressive Sampling Process for Diagnostic Testing in Figure 4-3 of Section 4.4.4 of the California 2001 Title 24 Low Rise Residential Manual - the Home Energy Rating Systems (HERS) Verification Procedure"". - Section 4.4.4 states - ""The HERS rater shall diagnostically test and field verify the first dwelling unit of each model. To be considered the same model, dwelling units shall be in the same subdivision or multifamily housing development and have the same energy designs and features, including the same floor area and volume, for each dwelling unit, as shown on the CF-1R."" In addition the standard describes a sampling one out of every seven (rounded to the next whole number) for each model. - Section 8.1 (which section 4.4.4. references) states - ""Each dwelling unit must comply with the Standards when using this approach. When dwelling units have identical conditions the calculations can be combined. This means you will show separate compliance for all unique conditions"" The 10/5/2004 Amendment to this CIR expresses that if the doors (connected to common hallways) are not weather-stripped, additional testing is required in the corridor. The pressure difference shall be measured and recorded at least once every 10 seconds for at least 15 minutes; the average recorded pressure difference shall be no less than 5 Pa (0.02 inches of water gauge), with the lowest recorded pressure difference no less than 1 Pa (0.004 inches of water). Proposed Approach: The proposed approach based on our understanding of the criteria is: - Sampling - (3) blower door tests will be conducted following the outlined criteria for the 20 units (rounded up to the next whole number). - If test results do not meet acceptable levels, additional tests will be conducted in accordance with the referenced process procedure. - Weather-stripping is being installed at all edges of connecting doors (except at the undercut at the door sill), and we therefore assume the testing referred to in the 10/5/2004 Amendment is not required." "The sampling appears to be in compliance with the requirements established in the California 2001 Title 24 Low Rise Residential Manual - the Home Energy Rating Systems (HERS) Verification Procedure. This procedure must be clearly detailed in the project\'s application for the reviewer to understand. It is also reasonable to expect additional tests, in accordance with the referenced standard, should the results prove unsatisfactory. The requirement for weather stripping does not specifically preclude the sill from this requirement and therefore will be necessary. It is consistent throughout the contents of both alternative compliance paths and in the original credit requirement that openings in ceiling, walls, and floors must be sealed and it is consistently required that a minimum pressure differential must be maintained to achieve this credit, in the absence of weather stripping. Therefore, in this case it is not acceptable to preclude the weather stripping at the sill of the doors, unless the connecting hall is tested and proves to maintain the required positive pressure as listed in CIR 10/05/04." "549, 680, 774, 1083" "None"